I move——

Do we know what resolution this is?

Does the Deputy have a copy of this? They were distributed around.

No.

We have not got them. Ineptitude.

I will be happy not to contribute on this item until the Deputy opposite has received a copy.

I can assure all Members of the House that these papers were made available.

I also have not got the budgetary tables which are usually distributed at this time.

They are usually distributed in respect of annual budgets. This is a supplementary budget.

I propose that we adjourn the House to enable the Government to supply Deputies with the necessary documentation.

Hear, hear.

Distribution was obviously effected incompletely. For some reason best known to those concerned some Members of the back benches received copies. Could the Chair arrange that the necessary steps be taken to complete distribution now?

That is not the responsibility of the Chair.

The Chair would ask the House to co-operate with it in accepting that, apparently, the normal tradition has been overlooked, due to the inadvertence of someone or other.

Is the Chair accepting my suggestion that we adjourn for 15 or 20 minutes to enable this necessary documentation to be supplied to all Deputies?

May I just say that my understanding is that this documentation was distributed to Members on the back benches on the Government side of the House and for some reason — certainly unknown to me — it appears not to have been distributed to the front benches?

This is a new departure.

I regret that eventuality.

Is this an indication of how the country is going to be run?

The Independent Deputies have got copies. Do you only get then if you vote in favour?

The position is that the Government——

I propose to vote against this. Is that why I am not entitled to have a copy?

The position is that the Government do not have any control over the distribution of this documentation. It is distributed in the normal way through the procedures in the House, over which the Government have no control. I am sorry if Deputy Fitzgerald, or Deputy Haughey or any other Deputy did not see them in time. However, it is not my fault.

A good beginning.

Are they to be printed again?

Do I take it that Deputy Haughey would accept that what has happened has, apparently, happened inadvertently and that in so far as copies have now been supplied, we can proceed with the discussion?

I want to insist on my proposal that the Chair adjourn this House for 15 or 20 minutes to enable everyone to be supplied with copies of these resolutions. If the Chair is not prepared to accept that, I would ask that the question be put to a vote.

This Parliament should be properly run.

I have confirmed the position with the officials, who have advised me in the matter that a sufficient quantity of these resolutions was made available through the Office of the House for distribution.

Perhaps the advice the Minister is getting through these officials is better than the distribution.

The effect of this resolution is to increase the——

These are long resolutions. We need to read them.

The Chair is not in a position to grant what has been requested by Deputy Haughey. Again, I would ask Deputy Haughey whether or not, in the circumstances, he is happy to accept that copies of the resolutions are available to him and to other Members so that they can discuss, in the required fashion what they contain?

In the normal way.

The front bench, as the Chair can see, have now been given copies — just now. As my colleague, Deputy O'Malley, points out, these are rather complex and complicated resolutions. We are entitled to some little time to peruse them.

It never happened before.

The Minister was talking about Dáil reform.

There is a precedent. They are usually handed out while the Opposition spokesman is speaking. I must ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to ensure that every Member on this side of the House is supplied with a copy of these resolutions before we proceed any further. I do not care how you achieve that objective. That is our proposition. We want every Deputy on this side of the House to have a copy of these resolutions so that at least the House will know what it is talking about and voting on. It is a jocose enough budgetary exercise we are talking about without making a farce of it.

I do not know why copies furnished were not distributed but the Opposition are owed the courtesy of ensuring that they all have copies. I know Deputies on the front bench have copies and there is no precedent for any delay between receipt of the resolutions by Deputies and the debate. The Opposition have a point in raising this matter since the copies were not distributed for some reason outside our control. To ensure that all Members have copies would seem to be in order, as well as being a courtesy.

Arising out of what the Taoiseach said, the practice has been that these resolutions are handed out immediately the Minister concludes and while the Opposition spokesman is speaking. There is that opportunity for the Opposition to examine them. Therefore, the Taoiseach was not correct in saying that ordinary practice is being followed and that no time is allowed to elapse between the distribution and the discussion.

I have confirmed that a sufficient quantity of resolutions was made available to the office in this House for distribution. However, as the Taoiseach indicated, in view of the request by the Leader of the Opposition we are happy to allow a postponement so that all Members will have an opportunity to read the resolutions.

Of what duration?

Fifteen minutes.

I move:

(1) THAT in this Resolution—

"actual alcoholic strength by volume" means the number of volumes of pure alcohol contained at a temperature of 20º C in 100 volumes of the product at that temperature;

"% vol" means alcoholic strength by volume;

"the Order of 1975" means the Imposition of Duties (No.221) (Excise Duties) Order, 1975 (S.I. No. 307 of 1975);

"the Act of 1981" means the Finance Act, 1981 (No. 16 of 1981).

(2) THAT the duty of excise on wine imposed by paragraph 5(2) of the Order of 1975 shall be charged, levied and paid, as on and from the 22nd day of July, 1981, at the several rates specified in the First Schedule to this Resolution in lieu of the several rates specified in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1981.

(3) THAT the duty of excise on made wine imposed by paragraph 6(2) of the Order of 1975 shall be charged, levied and paid, as on and from the 22nd day of July, 1981, at the several rates specified in the Second Schedule to this Resolution in lieu of the several rates specified in Part II of the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1981.

(4) IT is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

FIRST SCHEDULE

RATES OF EXCISE DUTY ON WINE

SECOND SCHEDULE

RATES OF EXCISE DUTY ON MADE WINE

The effect of this resolution is to increase immediately the rates of excise duty on an average 75 centilitre bottle of wine by amounts varying between the equivalents of 9p approximately and 18p approximately per bottle depending on the alcoholic strength of the wine. When VAT of 10 per cent is taken into account the increase will raise the total tax content on a bottle of wine by amounts varying between 10p and 20p per bottle. It depends on the strength of the wine which, as the House will be aware, is very variable. The resultant increase in revenue in the current financial year is estimated at an additional £0.8 million and £1.6 million in a full year. If Members opposite have any questions I will endeavour to answer them.

This proposal is really for the optics. It is not of great significance and we do not intend to get very excited about it. It seems to be a bottle. tax, a specific money amount per bottle. It is not related to the ad valorem value of the product. The same duty will apply to a bottle costing £1 as to a bottle costing £40, the only variation being on the alcoholic strength and not on the value.

There is a tantalising reference to champagne.

Sparkling wine.

Does that include our old friend champagne, so dear to the hearts of the capitalist Fine Gael people?

I suppose the Deputy is not a stranger to the same beverage.

Is there a different rate of duty applicable? There seems to be some difference.

Yes. As indicated in the Financial Resolution, which the Leader of the Opposition has received, the grade of duty in respect of sparkling wine is 3.02p per litre whereas on still wine of an alcoholic content by volume not exceeding 15 per cent it is 1.52 per litre. There is a differentiation between these two. In general the Leader of the Opposition is correct in saying that within these bands it does not matter what the price of the bottle is. Once it comes within one of the categories of alcoholic content the duty applies. Once it moves up to the alcoholic range it moves into another band where a higher pro-rata duty is applied.

Normally a duty of this sort, to make sense, would be ad valorem. Am I right in thinking that it has to be done in this way because of EEC customs regulations?

The Opposition have more experience of this matter than I but my understanding is that the position has always been as it is now proposed to be with the duty levied in the way indicated. There was never an ad valorem duty and this is not happening as a result of an EEC requirement. It is merely a continuation of an existing Irish practice.